D&D General Mike Mearls says control spells are ruining 5th Edition

[Minigiant]

No, there is a very much a difference of what the statement that 5e was designed with clear intent to ADD more rules later and with one that it was designed with clear intent to OUTSORCE THIS TO 3RD PARTY. You made the latter statemend and tried to change it when given pushback on it and request to provide evidence

I've always and continue to say that 5e was designed to outsource more rules to 3PPs and internet homebrewers.

Look at Bastions.

It took 10 years for WOTC to make Stronghold rules.
Because they ceded that design space to others.

Warlord and Tactical Martial?
Someone would eventually get to it.

Skill points?
Someone would eventually get to it.

Additional weapons?
Someone would eventually get to it.

Magic that isn't so brutal and heavy?
Someone would eventually get to it.

Epic boons that wasn't half done and unbalanced?
Someone would eventually get to it.

Legendary Boss monsters that are cinematic and provide dynamic combats?
Someone would eventually get to it.

If you listen to the podcasts, conventions, tables, articles, and interviews with 5e designers. Like the recently at Gamehole Con, you can hear them say that 5e was written to have all these optional modules module rules stitched on them for fans who wanted them. But if you look at WOTC's actions, schedule, releases, and effort, you clearly see that they didn't plan to be the ones making them.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I've always and continue to say that 5e was designed to outsource more rules to 3PPs and internet homebrewers.

And I will continue to ask you back up these claims of assumed authorial intent with quotes.

If you listen to the podcasts, conventions, tables, articles, and interviews with 5e designers. Like the recently at Gamehole Con, you can hear them say that 5e was written to have all these optional modules module rules stitched on them for fans who wanted them. But if you look at WOTC's actions, schedule, releases, and effort, you clearly see that they didn't plan to be the ones making them.

No, I will not listen to "the podcasts", if you make a claim about intent of designers or company decisions, the burden of proof is on you to provide the quotes and context, alongside sources.

 

[Eric V]

And I will continue to ask you back up these claims of assumed authorial intent with quotes.

No, I will not listen to "the podcasts", if you make a claim about intent of designers or company decisions, the burden of proof is on you to provide the quotes and context, alongside sources.

Unless you're his boss, he has no burden to prove anything to you. Or any of us.

 

[Minigiant]

And I will continue to ask you back up these claims of assumed authorial intent with quotes.

No, I will not listen to "the podcasts", if you make a claim about intent of designers or company decisions, the burden of proof is on you to provide the quotes and context, alongside sources.

Cook:

"The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. Like simple rules for your story-driven game? You're good to go. Like tactical combats and complex encounters? You can have that too. Like ultra-customized character creation? It's all there. In this game, you play what you want to play. It’s our goal to give you the tools to do so."

Mearls 13 years ago:
"wizards and the way they approach spells is fairly iconic to D&D, but the chief advantage of a class-based game is that we don't have to lean on one magic system. We've already shown some subtle differences between how clerics and wizards use spells. As we show off more classes, we can show off more approaches to magic.

Vancian magic has been an issue in D&D since the first house rules in 1974, and I think this is our chance to offer people options there, rather than dictate things."

Cept they never provided said tools. Not because they didn't want us to have them. But for one reason of another, WOTC changed and didn't want to produce tons and tons of rules content anymore. WOTC threw up the ideas but they didn't write the books.

And they went back to the OGL. So 3PPs could legally publish 5e variant rules.

But it didn't happen.

So for ten years we got one style of control magic and one kind of boss monster design.

And when they meet the boss monster better roll is 17 or higher or have a Legendary Resistance ready to burn...

Or they are SCREWED.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't know, there were a lot of spells with low utility or combat ability, it would certainly be possible to screw yourself over. Especially at low levels when you don't have many spells known.

3E had built-in stuff that rewarded system mastery like Toughness as trap feat, but I don't think the christmas tree 15 minute adventuring day party scry-buff-teleporting its enemies was really something the original designers had intended or fully expected. And yes, of course not everyone went to these extremes. Paizo managed to capitalize on that, IMO, its adventure paths were often grinders that required heavy optimization, you probably won't find this as extreme in the early adventures for D&D. (Of course, early low-level adventures could be grinders, simply because 1d4+CON hit points just isn't much to start with...)

Wrt that bolded bit the gm had a lot of ways to push back and put their thumb on the scale for each party member as needed by using things like body slot conflicts or magic item churn expectations. The "Christmas tree" was literally a bit of well designed gm empowerment with a dedicated behind the curtain entry about why the slots were so varied

Scry and fry(like codzilla) was more of a punpun adjacent whiteroom thing than something to see in the wild beyond perhaps a one off twist

I've always and continue to say that 5e was designed to outsource more rules to 3PPs and internet homebrewers.

Look at Bastions.

It took 10 years for WOTC to make Stronghold rules.
Because they ceded that design space to others.

Warlord and Tactical Martial?
Someone would eventually get to it.

Skill points?
Someone would eventually get to it.

Additional weapons?
Someone would eventually get to it.

Magic that isn't so brutal and heavy?
Someone would eventually get to it.

Epic boons that wasn't half done and unbalanced?
Someone would eventually get to it.

Legendary Boss monsters that are cinematic and provide dynamic combats?
Someone would eventually get to it.

If you listen to the podcasts, conventions, tables, articles, and interviews with 5e designers. Like the recently at Gamehole Con, you can hear them say that 5e was written to have all these optional modules module rules stitched on them for fans who wanted them. But if you look at WOTC's actions, schedule, releases, and effort, you clearly see that they didn't plan to be the ones making them.

I. This note. I'm so tired of hearing statements like how something was streamlined simplified or what"to make it easy for you to homebrew how you want"

 

[Azzy]

Unless you're his boss, he has no burden to prove anything to you. Or any of us.

If they want to have what they say taken seriously and not be dismissed, the onus is upon them to support their stance with actual evidence.

 

[Zardnaar]

If they want to have what they say taken seriously and not be dismissed, the onus is upon them to support their stance with actual evidence.

If theyre claiming specifics and not putting an imho or its clear its an opinion.

My favorites them claiming you to prove it while not realizing what they've said is actually an opinion as well.

Hearsay and all that.

Stoopid kiwi we iz not edukated wells here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And I will continue to ask you back up these claims of assumed authorial intent with quotes.

Okay...how about, y'know, the whole "we literally licensed out books to others" thing? Because that's a literal actual business thing they did. We have it on record. That's why we got the Acquisitions Inc. book. That's why we have the Humblewood book. That's why there's a whole book full of official, WotC-approved Exandria content.

No, I will not listen to "the podcasts", if you make a claim about intent of designers or company decisions, the burden of proof is on you to provide the quotes and context, alongside sources.

Will you listen to a list of licensed products officially made for D&D 5th Edition....and not, as far as I'm aware, in any way written by WotC?

 

[Azzy]

If theyre claiming specifics and not putting an imho or its clear its an opinion.

Opinions are not facts.

 

[Minigiant]

If they want to have what they say taken seriously and not be dismissed, the onus is upon them to support their stance with actual evidence.

The onus is on me to prove my point. Which I did by stating the designers constantly talked about and still talk about modularity in design BUT also stating WOTC didn't actually produce many strong mechanical modular rules.

WOTC produced 2 Player modular options books, 0 DM modular options books, and 0 monster modular options in the 10 years of 5e.

I mean guys... People were complaining that the Planescape book didn't have ship rules in it.

3e and 4e WOTC flooded us with content and modular rules. 5e WOTC was anemic. 5e books barely have a dozen new spells in them.

If exact quotes were needed, they wouldn't come until I had the free time away from prying eyes to uncover them. But the info was there and easy to find. WOTC designers spoke of modularity but WOTC didn't provide but created the platforms (OGL, DM's Guild) for others to make them.

This meant the WOTC corporate strategy was for 3PPs and small time homebrew publishers to provide the modular rules.

They weren't going to say

"Hey boss monsters are easy to control and manage with control spells here are some options to allow them to resist such controlled spells if you don't like legendary resistance:

Legendary effort: A monster can take a point of exhaustion to get +5 to a saving throw.

School Immunity: Choose three schools of magic. The monster is immune to the effects and damage from spells from those chosen schools.

Dragonfire Spellburn: A dragon can spent a use of their dragon breath to counter spell a spell targeting them only from a creature within the range of their dragon breath.

Rock Beats Paper: A giant if holding a boulder, as a Reaction, can hurl a boulder at a spellcaster targeting them with a spell. It the attack hits, the spellcaster must make a Concentration check or have the spellcasting interrupted. The spellslot is not expended"

The rock thing is how I spiced up a fire giant boss. He threw rocks at casters. After turn 1, the party figured out that they either had to keep boulders out his hands or bait his reaction the OP controls spell still worked but the boss giant won't let you cast them easily less you want your wizard to be buried in boulders.